Find Nearby Plumbers In Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, and they are identical duplicates with identical timestamps (differing only by seconds), which is a strong indicator of fake or artificially generated reviews. The reviews contain no specific details about pricing, professionalism, or experience—only generic praise about efficiency and project completion. Both reviews are from 2020, making them over 3 years old and not representative of current service quality.

• CRITICAL: Identical duplicate reviews detected. Both reviews contain word-for-word identical text with timestamps only 13 hours and 58 minutes apart (2020-07-07 13:58:31 and 2020-07-07 00:00:00). This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially generated reviews.
• All reviews are from July 2020 — over 3 years old. No recent review data available to assess current service quality.
• Reviews lack specific details about pricing, professionalism, communication, or technical skill. Only generic praise provided.
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) to produce a reliable WW Score.

This score cannot be trusted. The dataset consists of only 2 identical duplicate reviews from 2020, which strongly suggests fake or artificially generated content. No reliable assessment of contractor quality can be made from this data.

Both available reviews describe severely negative experiences with David Roberts. In one case, $9,000 was paid for a project that was largely unstarted past its June 2021 completion deadline, with the contractor only making verbal promises rather than taking action. In the second case, the contractor accepted a deposit and then became completely unresponsive — a pattern consistent with abandonment of contracted work. Professionalism scores near zero due to disappearing after payment and failing to communicate. Project completion scores near zero as neither job was finished. Pricing scores slightly higher only because deposit structures were disclosed upfront, but the failure to deliver any value for money paid is a serious negative indicator.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews describe a pattern of taking payment (deposit or full payment) and then failing to perform work or respond — this is a serious red flag suggesting potential fraud or contractor abandonment behavior.
• Review 1 references 'Mohave Leveling' as the operating business name — contractor may operate under multiple business names, which warrants additional scrutiny.
• Both reviews are from 2021 and may not reflect current business status, but no positive or more recent reviews are available to offset these findings.
• No reviews mention workmanship quality or technical skill, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored at all.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are strongly negative and describe potential contractor fraud; while the sample size is too small for a reliable WW Score calculation, the consistency and severity of the complaints across both reviews make the negative findings credible and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of the contractor. The reviewer explicitly describes a no-show appointment with no prior notice or follow-up call, and reports that the contractor was completely unreachable by phone on the day of the appointment. These are direct, serious failures in both professionalism and project completion — the job never even began. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as the contractor never arrived to perform any work. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2017-05-07, which is more than 7 years old. Current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• No data available for Pricing or Experience dimensions — two of four scoring dimensions are entirely absent.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any confidence can be placed in these findings.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (timely arrival, responsiveness), project completion (job completed quickly), and experience (knowledgeable, effective problem-solving). However, pricing is not addressed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single positive review cannot establish pattern or confidence in contractor performance

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor quality. A single review from over 3 years ago is insufficient to generate a meaningful WW Score; at least 3 recent reviews are required.

Only one review was analyzed, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly criticizes professionalism, specifically poor responsiveness and failure to return phone calls over a one-week period. No information was provided regarding pricing fairness, project completion, or technical experience. A WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices or recent performance.
• No data available for 3 of 4 dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience).

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and extreme age of the single review provided.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly mentions fair pricing and returning for a second job, suggesting satisfaction with value. Project completion is implied positively as multiple tasks were completed across two units with the customer willing to return. Workmanship quality is referenced generally with 'great job' but lacks specific technical detail. Professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, and attitude are not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency weighting applies; no recent reviews available to confirm current performance.
• Praise is somewhat generic ('great job', 'fair rate') with limited specific detail, though the mention of repeat business adds modest credibility.
• Single review cannot be assessed for fake review patterns — no comparison set available.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over two years ago, and the WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.